La Flamme Rouge **off topic discussion**

magicbastarder wrote: »

There seems to be, but not very wide.

https://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/hapless-drivers-in-dublin-struggling-to-get-to-grips-with-new-cycle-lanes/

If the last six months have taught us anything, it's that human beings cannot necessarily be relied upon to understand rules, nor implement them properly. Whether via lack of thought or cynical ignorance. Administrations need to learn to convey messages as clearly as possible in a manner that the even the less educated lay person can understand, while enforcing these changes and punishing rule breakers on a "scale of severity" basis.

At the same time, these constant band aid efforts do not have any effect but to alienate those not the target of "improvements". A holistic approach is required, enforcement of current rules, improvements in public transport nationally, efforts to draw people away from reliance on cars, especially in urban areas, etc.

I like my cars and always have, but trying to talk to many people about restricting car use is like finding yourself in the middle of the helmet debate here or sometimes even gun law debates. They eventually become a debate about people's rights, exposing the usual ignorance of what rights aim to do, i.e. human rights aim to secure for individuals the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life.

Remove many of the core arguments against lower car ownership, like improvements in public transport, for example, and these debates begin to revolve around more obviously selfish reasoning, "I want a car so I should have a car".

I know forcing through a smoking ban was originally thought by many to be a bad idea and became accepted as the norm, but that involved pushing a rule on a minority. These changes are now being made to push a majority away from a mindset that has existed in this country for decades (a debate for another day) and as has been shown before, the more you force opinions on people, the more they knuckle down with them.

The lockdown brought a vision of the possible world we could have, bar the lack of commerce, etc, and many people felt the benefits of it, and it feels already like it was a fleeting vision and we're doomed now to exist in the worst of both worlds, the shyte that is Covid and the chaos of the old normal.

magicbastarder wrote: »

fun experiment - just try saying 'i hate SUVs' to an average joe.
i've tried it a couple of times, it's gas how annoyed some people get. 'you want to ban SUVs!' 'I have a right to drive whatever car i want' yadda yadda.

Agree. I've been part of the "car scene" for a very long time as many on this forum have been. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm also a vegan and would consider myself a "tree hugger", so I get sh!t on by both sides of the argument.

magicbastarder wrote: »

cyclist *and* a vegan? you must be a masochist.

Aren't all cyclists?

tomasrojo wrote: »

I saw that, and, leaving aside the punchline, it's strangely framed, as if the intolerances it mentions are one-way: Remainers are intolerant of Leavers, but not the other way round; vegetarians are intolerant of meat eaters, but not the other way round. I spent more time thinking about this than the punchline.

You're treating intolerance as fundamentally wrong, which I don't believe it is. You need to examine the root of the intolerance while considering Karl Popper's tolerance paradox.

This growing concept that intolerance of things such as racism is equally as destructive as the intolerances represented by racism is farcical

CramCycle wrote: »

I drive an SUV but am very aware of the fact that it is wildly inappropriate as a vehicle for driving around town (or most places). My only defense is that when I do drive I am typically transporting 5 other people and 3 dogs.

In fairness there are a number of viable reasons for driving an SUV. Hoe you drive it is more important than what you drive, maybe? I've to go car hunting again cos my son has breached the six foot mark and looks to continue the spurt for awhile and he can't fit in the back of the current estate (leg room sacrificed for boot space) so I've to go looking for something bigger again.

Like how would we get to races otherwise?

I wonder how restrictions on Chinese imports are effecting companies?

Weepsie wrote: »

So going by RTE's wording, the car was responsible for not having tax, insurance or NCT and was responsible for its speed?

In fairness, it's difficult to phrase it when no details are know about the driver or other occupants bar that it was obviously driven and that the driver clearly left the scene.

I know working of articles is an emotive topic here, but I don't think the same criticism is due here as would be when reporting a court case where all details are available.